Thanks Peter -- for both the confirmation and the additional information! --Kaleb
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Farland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a known issue with Flex's HTTPService (and should be fixed in > Flex SDK 2.0.1 Hotfix 2). > > For now, before calling send, convert the content to a String by > explicitly calling content.toXMLString(). > > service.send(content.toXMLString()); > > Note that XML.toString() and XML.toXMLString() behave differently > according to the E4X specification. If there is a single node that has > simple content, the simple content will be unwrapped when toString() is > used, but not in the case of toXMLString(). Furthermore, if the node's > simple content is actually empty, then you'll run into another known > issue with the player that if there is no content to POST (i.e. the > empty String) then the request is converted to a GET. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of kaleb_pederson > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:42 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [flexcoders] Bug: GET/POST determined by XML Contents not > method > > > > When I send data to a web service, whether or not it sends the > request as a GET or a POST is determined by contents of the XML that > I happened to be sending. > > For example, here's the ActionScript I used: > > import mx.rpc.http.HTTPService; > > var service:HTTPService = new HTTPService(); > > service.url = "http://localhost:8080/path/to/dest > <http://localhost:8080/path/to/dest> "; > service.method = "POST"; > service.contentType = HTTPService.CONTENT_TYPE_XML; > > var content:XML = <test/>; // FAILS - Sent as a GET > //var content:XML = <test></test>; // FAILS - Sent as a GET > //var content:XML = <test><hasChild/></test>; // WORKS - Sent as a > POST > > service.send( content ); > > As indicated in the comments above, if I add a dummy child node to > my root element, it makes the request a POST. Without it, > it sends the request as a GET. > > This is definitely repeatable on my end. Can anyone else confirm > this bug please? > > Thanks. > > --Kaleb >
